Reply #7: The 14th Amendment seems to play a role, here... [View All]

[SteveM]

The 14th Amendment defines a U.S. citizen and then goes on to say "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;..." This, of course, stopped states from abridging the rights of blacks and others when those states said that any rights a U.S. citizen has are not necessarily applicable to citizens of a state. There seems to be an inverse to this: where a U.S. citizens has his/her rights abridged by an entity (Washington, D.C.) which is not a state, but is in effect governed by the U.S., then those citizens are guaranteed the Constitution's protections "directly." In other words, no need to argue the 14th Amendment.

While such an interpretation is not the best in the world, because rights guaranteed by the Constitution do not allow for day-to-day governance of D.C., it would seems a possible plausible interpretation for the predicament D.C. finds itself in with regards Heller.